World War III is already here

[mapuc]

First some words before. Some weeks ago on the Swedish P1 radio program "Philosophical room" a person asked a question

When will World War III start ?

Here is what peace and conflict researcher and professor of intelligence analysis, Wilhelm Agrell said:

http://speisa.com/modules/articles/index.php/item.1479/we-can-not-imagine-what-will-happen.html

Both Wilhelm Agrell, Professor of intelligence analysis and Kristian Gerner, a history professor, in the program agreed that the conflicts we now see in the Middle East, North Africa and terrorism in Europe should be designated as a world war.


Are they wrong or ?

Are they wrong because-No it can't be true I do not believe it ?
Or
Are they wrong because-A more technical/logical answer is given by the author ?

Or is it correct what they have said ?

Markus

[Platapus]

It would first depend on how the term "world war" is being defined. Without knowing the definition, it is impossible to evaluate the situation.

[Tchocky]

They're wrong because we're seeing less mass conflict than ever before

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-29/world-actually-becoming-more-peaceful-believe-it-or-not

Not trying to be too cynical but labeling it as WW3 is an attention grab.

And COME ON, terrorism in Europe?! There's less than ever FFS.

[Oberon]

There's a distinct lack of Soviet T-72s in the Fulda Gap, if we are in WWIII then I want a refund. :nope:

[fireftr18]

The whole concept of "world war" is that the majority of the world is involved in the war. I believe we are in WW3 now. I feel the 9/11 attacks plunged us into it. Successful prosecution of the war prevented it from getting deeper, although I feel we could have done a better job.

[Torplexed]

World War Three? I don't think so, in the manner in which such a possible conflict was anticipated during the Cold War years.

The Third World at War? Looking at the increasing tally of dysfunctional former colonies and non-aligned, non-nations, that is a term I'd certainly agree with.

[Stealhead]

World War Three? I don't think so, in the manner in which such a possible conflict was anticipated during the Cold War years.

The Third World at War? Looking at the increasing tally of dysfunctional former colonies and non-aligned, non-nations, that is a term I'd certainly agree with.

I like that way of putting it. The Third World at War. In some ways an extension of the proxy wars during the Cold War. Some liked to consider the Cold War as a stand off between the First World(North America, Western Europe and Japan) and the Second World (Soviet Union and China) Third World (former colonies). I suppose that the Soviets would have called themselves the First World and considered the West as the Second World having power but an inferior modis operendi.

What is occurring now is simply an extension of the pecking order some what established during the Cold War (post WWII decades).

In some ways I feel that China benefits the most currently they can spend their budgets on improving and expanding their military. While the West especially the US cuts spending. China also has the advantage that its population is not war weary.

[Aktungbby]

How 'bout we look at it as it really is: as the tribulation of the first world war with a 20 year break to raise another crop of cannon fodder for the 'second war of 'german expansion' so called WWII and the post colonial fallout of that portion of the conflict with the faulty Anglo/franco colonies of Israel, Iraq, Iran, India, Indo-china and Afghanistan; Rearing their respective hydra-to-be-seared heads. Generally the creation of a post war political vacuum such as post revolution France( Bonaparte) post WWI Weimar inefficiency (Hitler) post Tito Yugoslavia: The current Balkan mess or post Iraq( ISIS) and the collapse of the so called Soviet empire(Ukraine) stemming back to the Bolshevik murder of the Czar keeps the fuse well lit...into the 21 century. With the perceived lack of western economic and military force, post-Tibetan takeover acquisitive China, everyone's former colony, is now into the act.....in the Cowslick.

[Stealhead]

WWI wasn't started by communists therefore you can't blame this all upon them. I must strongly disagree that the past 100 years of conflict is the fault of communists. China for example what a can of worms that is the KMT was far worse then the Chinese Communists and I very highly doubt they'd have stayed an ally of the US decades post war.

[ikalugin]

Well, what we could see now (various local conflicts) is the kind of various things that happen pre WW, ie the Balkan wars before the WW1 or Manchuria/Spain before WW2.

In my opinion WW3 (which would be largely conventional) would occur due to the:
- desintegration of inherently unstable post Cold War global security system.
- rise of alternative economic powers outside of North Atlantic area.

[HunterICX]

There's a distinct lack of Soviet T-72s in the Fulda Gap, if we are in WWIII then I want a refund. :nope:

For Refund you'll have to contact the Germans, the Germans will see this as a valid reason by shifting the blame on Poland to invade the country.

Problem solved and you still have your refund :yeah:

[Betonov]

While this could be technically considered WW3, we should reserve that title for something more deserving.
This should just remain the global war on terror or global clash of civilizations for the PC crowd.

[Oberon]

For Refund you'll have to contact the Germans, the Germans will see this as a valid reason by shifting the blame on Poland to invade the country.

Problem solved and you still have your refund :yeah:

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/ambnn0zwz8rxjrj7zkr1.gif

[ikalugin]

I think we are around "you have asked for this" on the happening scale moving towards "you cant stop this".

[Jimbuna]

We'll know WW3 has started when whole armies are mobilised and sent to fight in other countries....what we see now are little more than skirmishes but said skirmishes do have the potential to escalate matters to a far greater meaning and threat.

[mapuc]

If the story had been in a out-of-the-main-stream-media I wouldn't believe it at all not a inch

If it hadn't been for the Swedish news paper aftonbladet, who had the article some weeks before.

I have always had huge respect for Mr Wilhelm Agrell ´cause I know his knowledge in his field of expertise is not just thing you -throw away as-
ye ye what ever.

And how many countries are fighting IS/ISIS/ISIL ? and how many soldiers/fighter jet/plane has to be involved before you call it a war?

When it comes to terrorism in Europe-I try to recall if there has been some attack after the thing in Copenhagen. Or before Paris.

Markus

[ikalugin]

IS is dangerous, but it is localised at the moment. Unless it spreads across additional territories (ie if it somehow overtakes saudis and other Gulf monarchies) it is not an external threat to Europe.

[mapuc]

IS is dangerous, but it is localised at the moment. Unless it spreads across additional territories (ie if it somehow overtakes saudis and other Gulf monarchies) it is not an external threat to Europe.

IS is dangerous very dangerous indeed.

What I tried to say is: A world War- has it be fought in several countries or is it enough that several countries is fighting in on country against each other or together against one ?

Markus

[Oberon]

http://i.imgur.com/wbdfavp.jpg

[Kaptlt.Endrass]

I think (and this is just my opinion) that what we have in the Middle East, AS OF NOW, is not the beginning of a World War, but it is definitely unsettling. To me, it is a religious war over something we've been fighting for over centuries. Look at the Crusades; were those considered 'world wars'? I will admit, ISIS is much more organized than Al-Qaeda and the Taliban ever were, but they identify as a terror group, and therefore are considered part of the war on terror.

My concern lies in, as said by Torplexed, is in the 'recently' formed countries in the Far East, namely India and Pakistan. The U.S. keeps a close watch on Pakistani military movements, and while relations at this moment are cordial between the two, what's to say that won't blow up in our faces? Not to mention the nuclear programs of the two countries, whether they exist or not.

And of course, you have the old superpowers butting heads, and some of the still-communist countries. Vietnam: not on my watch list. The US and Vietnam may not be the best of friends, but there is little animosity towards us, especially further south. Same with Cuba.

What I mean are China and North Korea. I will say, I don't like the Russians (despite being part-Russian, though I know a few and am friends with them), but I REALLY don't like the Koreans and Chinese. Koreans, at the moment, are not much of a military threat towards the US directly, but China is turning into a pre-WWII Russia without the economy. They have manpower, materiel strength, and factories to waste. They could support a materiel war for quite some time. Morale, on the other hand, may be difficult, as (to my knowledge), the Chinese don't have many food sources due to extreme overpopulation.

And finally, Russia. The bear. We all know the rivalry between Washington DC and Moscow has never stopped. As a bit of a 20th-century wargamer, I can say that Russian attitude to most Americans is...poor. Team-killing is abound on multi-national servers, and it isn't uncommon for an American player on a Russian server (or vice-versa) to be targeted by everyone in the game (First-world problems, I know).

Russia is also the first country in decades to annex another territory (the Crimea Incident), but they're a bit lower on my list as they just aren't the superpower the used to be, with the collapse of the economy during the nuclear arms race and fight for general military superiority in the Cold War.


One thing I can say for certain is that, as long as possible countries and their allies have nuclear capabilities and the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction is around, we won't have to worry about the world being blown apart (FUN FACT!!!!: We only need 8 nukes to blow up the entire world! The US has (or had) 5000 of them. Russia claims to have about half that. :dead::o:nope:)

[Platapus]

Both Wilhelm Agrell, Professor of intelligence analysis and Kristian Gerner, a history professor, in the program agreed that the conflicts we now see in the Middle East, North Africa and terrorism in Europe should be designated as a world war.

Have any of the involved countries declared a legal state of war? Might be hard to call something a world war if no one declares war.

But World Operations Other Than War does not have the same ring to it

WOOTO? :nope:

[mapuc]

Have any of the involved countries declared a legal state of war? Might be hard to call something a world war if no one declares war.

But World Operations Other Than War does not have the same ring to it

WOOTO? :nope:

Many years ago on CNN I heard and saw some in the studio saying

"Today we do not declear war, it's an old way."

It was something like that it was many years ago, so I can't remember every word.

Denmark didn't declear war on Libya or IS. The sent their Fighter jets and start bombing.

Markus

[Platapus]

One of the many reasons the US Congress does not declare war is that once they do, quite a few of our laws change and start giving the President considerable individual authority that will stay with the President until Congress declares the war over.

Given the choice of OOTW and keeping control/power and declaring war and giving much of that power to the President, it is not surprising that Congress chooses not to declare war.

I would like to see a drastic restriction of OOTW as it think it circumvents the US constitution.

War should be something to be avoided and used only as a last resort. OOTW makes fighting wars easier and that is what I feel should not happen.

If we are going to send the military someplace to kill and die, we need to declare war.

[ikalugin]

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/9745/94845085.116/0_123bca_b12dcacb_orig
Tu214R flight.

[gregorm]

World War is a war between Great Powers.

As we speak you've got tens of thousands of Americans doing business in China and American investors are working alongside Russian, even with the sanctions.

Until a no-fly zone is implemented over Europe and the Chinese coast, I don't see us being in a world war.